Originally posted by R J
It was just brought to my attention that that link is no longer vaild try this one if you want it HTML
2257 html link
-
It was just brought to my attention that that link is no longer vaild try this one if you want it HTML
2257 html link-----------
ICQ#147-366-451 -
Please explain how you have ANY idea what I am feeling right now over a computer? I am actually quite calm. It's called Devil's Advocate and I think it serves a purpose.Originally posted by Lenny2
Now I said that a couple of days ago and several people called me stupid and an idiot. Not sure if you were one of them.In the comments section the DOJ said that if a primary producer refuses to provide a secondary producer with documentation, they're in violation of the regulations.Comment
-
You're funny... The bill of sale/contract isn't with the salesman.. it's with the dealership....Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
There are no new laws, just new regulations.Originally posted by GatorB
Regulations specify how the law will be enforced, and the DOJ has the authority to write such regulations.
The law is still the same, the regulations were updated "to reflect the growth of the internet in the past five years and the proliferation of pornography on the internet"sig too bigComment
-
Exactly.Originally posted by Nate-MM2
If I had hotdog cart in New York, then I'm on US soil selling to americans.
But if my sexually explicit material is not on US soil, but accessible from the US. They can't do anything.
Kinda like standing on the Mexican side of the US/Mexican border flashing your tits. US Police can't do anything about it.
I'm not 100% sure on this one. So correct me if I'm wrong.
IF they really wanted to go after a non-US webmaster (one-man show), I guess they could make so if he enters US soil, he would get arrested. But if you have a corporation, you as a person is pretty safe.Comment
-
The way I read it was that it is up to the secondary producer to make sure he/she has all the correct documentation from the primary producer.Originally posted by Lenny2
The primary producer is under no obligation to provide that information to all of their customers.Comment
-
Page 29614Originally posted by Nate-MM2
Paragraph 3sig too bigComment
-
I was, and you are....but that's beside the point.Originally posted by GatorB
Nothing in the proposed regulations that we were discussing the other day made mention of this requirement for primary producers.
There's actually nothing in the new regulations that say this either. It's in the DOJ's response to comments section. Which none of us knew about when we were having that discussion.
Don't worry, you're still an idiot.sig too bigComment
-
Originally posted by goBigtime
question is - anyone who signs up with the FSC is protected with this injunction that will be locked up in court for years? or does it blanket the whole industry?
webmaster paradise was one of the first to support the FSC and have been in close contact with their executive director and will work with them for as long as it takesLast edited by TheLegacy; 05-24-2005, 05:54 AM.Comment
-
Missed that part, thanks for pointing that out.Originally posted by Lenny2Comment
-
By the letter of the law it only protects their members, but for practical matters it would generally cover the whole industry.Originally posted by TheLegacy
You may still be prosecuted though if you aren't named in the injunction.
I can't see it happening though.Comment
-
I got scanned drivers licenses on the content I bought 2 years ago, I wouldn't even consider buying it if I didn't. Funny since I'm not in the US and it wasn't even required in the US then. Most content producers need the small purchasers.Originally posted by Nate-MM2Comment
-
Seriously though folks.....we can discuss this until we're blue in the face (and we probably will) but you still NEED to hire an attorney and have them explain the law and regulations to you and tell you what you need to do in order to comply.
Saying that "so and so from a message board told me this was ok" won't cut it in front of a judge, you need a lawyer that specializes in this industry, PERIOD.
You might want to wait until tomorrow to call one though, since these regs were published just a couple hours ago and they probably haven't had time to read them yet
sig too bigComment
-
Blah blah BS and we all know it. If Gore had won in 2000 these "rules" wouldn't even exist today. Like I said I'm not worried I don't deal in much content anymore and I guess I won't start now. Too much BS.Originally posted by Lenny2
Not that it's MY problem but how many here think any newbie webmaster is going to even KNOW about these rules let alone comply with them. Fucking Joe Blow making a TGP gallery is going to get all this info and cross reference with descriptions? How long is that going to take.
Image 001.jpg at http://bushsuckscock.com/gallery01.html
Decription blonde girl wearing pink bra sucking cock of black male holding cock in right hand while in kneeling position while looking to the left. Black male has smile on face.
Female name Jane Doe AKA Hot Slut 123 Fuckbush Street Denver Co 69696 DOB 1-1-80. Male Tyrone Black AKA Mandango 6969 69th street Compton CA 06969 DOB 2-7-72
and fucking so on. And that's for one pic. don't forget you need one for each thumb too.Comment
-
Originally posted by GatorB
Yeah that is definitely interesting there. I'm not sure how valid their commentary is VS. actual law though? Because if a movie theatre explicitly gets an exemption (by their commentary, not necessarily by law... they did deny the request after all), then shouldn't a paysite displaying the content to the end user get the same exemption? If they didn't create the content, or contract the content to be produced, then isn't that paysite basically a eletronic movie theatre of sorts?Last edited by goBigtime; 05-24-2005, 06:00 AM.Comment
-
Again it will come down to how large of a percentage of the market is going to insist on compliance and how far primary producers are willing to go in order to be able to sell to that market.Originally posted by chadglni
We are also going to be looking into indemnity for content producers that are not able or are unwilling to comply with the regulations as long as they actually have the correct documentation themselves.Comment
-
I don't think that's true.Originally posted by Nate-MM2
When the ACLU got an injunction against COPA, the law was unenforcable period. The injunction didn't only apply to card carrying ACLU members.
Also, the FSC has said they won't divulge thier membership list to anyone, ever.
sig too bigComment
-
I was still right. So nice for you to acknowledge that and apologize.Originally posted by Lenny2Comment
-
Originally posted by Nate-MM2
Yeah, just imagine some sickfuck obsessed by some model wants to find out here real name and where she lives
BTW from what I understand you do not need to make this info publicly available on the internet as posted by someone earlier in this thread. In the regs it just says the records need to be kept in digital or textual form ordered by last name, with cross references and so on. Or did I miss some part ?$$$ PimpRoll converts like a mofu, don't miss out on this shit $$$
Comment
-
You won't find much pity for a business person ignorant of the law on either side of the argument at hand.Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
You don't publish the model's info on the internet.Originally posted by guschi2k
The privacy issue was raised in regards to stalkers posing as webmasters wanting to purchase content or as affiliates wanting to use free content in order to promote a website.Comment
-
I picked up on that also and wondered why someone that displays...lets say a sexually explicit video...on their host...would to have keep releases and ID's of the models/performers in the video...on file.Originally posted by GatorBWhen you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!
FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.htmlComment
-
I've got 2 important question:
how do they plan to define whether the document/image/whatever was published before or after the regulations take power?
Will I have to prove that a document was published before the June 23 2005
I've read the text, but was'nt able to find the answers.Comment
-
Maybe not, but how many of us did that when we started? How many would have if the rules required it back then? Newbies don't know shit. Just wonder are all these newbiw tutorial website goingto have articles on how to properly document content for 2257 compliance. To be honest I still don't have fucking clue to what exactly they want. thye want physical copies areanged ina certian ordr. They want digital copies but it doesn't have to be published on the web(ok?) but you have to have 2257 links on you site to the info(Huh???????). Does the government even know WTF they want?Originally posted by Nate-MM2
I truely believe some guy following all the rules will get busted because even the feds won't know WTF the rules are and just assume he's in violationComment
-
Try July 3, 1995.Originally posted by PicsMastersComment
-
Because all that a store owner can do is sell the published work. While we can cut and paste, add text, add in other images, overlay URL's, splice other video.. we can produce, or reproduce the material.Originally posted by theking
Have you seen the extent that some people photoshop their images? Hell, you can't even tell it was a picture of a human at some point down the line! lmao.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.
Comment
-
You publish the address of the Custodian of Records who is keeping your documentation.Originally posted by GatorB
If you are a TGP gallery builder working out of your basement for example then you publish your home address on your galleries and keep all your documentation at your house (place of business in this case)Comment
-
Oh I'm supposed to put my home address on the internet? Yeah fuck that.Originally posted by Nate-MM2
This crap just keeps getting better.Comment
-
Well...does having editorial control...include text links to FHG's?Originally posted by Lenny2When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!
FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.htmlComment
-
What if you don't do any of that you are just showing the work just like a porno theater would show a movie? Doesn't a theater owner have creative license on how the movie is shown? Doesn't he pick what color the walls are the seats the carpet? How is that different than webpage?Originally posted by PR_TomComment
-
Originally posted by TheLegacy
From what I understood .... only members of the FSC.
This time a lot of you will have to pay to play instead of having others fight the battles for you on their money
Comment
-
Didnt got the part were it says that the minute you had the copy of the documents you became custodian of records. Is that so?Originally posted by GatorB
Also, since we are on the asking bandwagon, isnt this like a root scheme? meaning that if the primary producer keeps records, the secondary producer needs to keep his records AND the primary records, and vice versa? as a combined database?ICQ: 9203112Comment
-
Bookmark the link in my sig.... we'll get you sorted out.Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
It is apparent that if non US citizens do not comply with US law...the purchasers of non US content cannot legally use their content...thus they would lose their market in the US.Originally posted by Nate-MM2When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!
FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...http://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.htmlComment
-
So, i still can't figure out if a TGP that doesn't have sexually explict material such as only having mugshots. These thumbs link to sexually explict material, is he still responsible to have the 2257 crap at his home/internet? I hope someone understands what i mean, because i sure as hell can't figure out this legal gibberish.
Comment
-
The primary producer keeps his own records as outlined in the guidelines, the secondary producer keeps his own records as outlined in the guidelines.Originally posted by MiLo TurboNegro
There are different requirements for each, the only connection is that the secondary producer gets some of his documentation from the primary producer.Comment
-
We are still in conversations with our legal counsel as to the exposure on our end of working around this roadblock, we'll have info for both the content producers themselves and their customers very soon as mentioned earlier in this thread.Originally posted by thekingComment
-
If you dont have sexually explicit materials on your hosting under your control, then it can't apply of course. In theory, everything on the internet links to everything else (or has a chance to), so yeah it would be impossible to carry documents for the entire contents of the internet, hehe.Originally posted by Nightwind
If you have code on your page to hotlink sexually explicit material, then my understanding has been that you WOULD be required to have documents on the hotlinked image however. Anyone clarify that? Hotlinking is "causing to be displayed" on your page afterall.43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.Comment
-
Originally posted by swedguy
i dont know if im reading this wrong, but is this saying that webmasters just have to list the records of the company who sells the content? Like we do now?
We dont have to list our own addresses if we post images, just the primary producers?Comment
-
explain this to me
Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.
So if the primary producer tells me that the images don't have to comply with 2257 then I can take him at his word and put a statement on my site that says the images don't have to comply with 2257? And if the pimary producer is LYING about that????????Comment
-
Isn't that what google images does?Originally posted by PR_TomComment
-
hmm.... aside from what gator was talking about with TGP's...Originally posted by Lenny2
both the movie theatre and store owners ultimately make the decision about what individual movies or magazines are displayed or offered to the end user. Interesting.
In my non-legal opinion, I would think that a link-only TGP (no thumbnails, no banners requiring 2257) would be ok according to the COMMENTS made by the DOJ. There may be other things that contradict what was said there, but in that one comment.... a link-only TGP linking to offsite galleries sounds like distribution to me.Comment
-
They are referring to having to keep the address of the primary producer along with the model's documentation. That has nothing to do with the online portion of the record-keeping requirements.Originally posted by clickhappyComment
-
Thanks for clearing that up. So basicly the worst case scenario for a TGP owner would be to make sure that he doesn't have any nude thumbs or banners on his site. Doesn't seem to bad to me, i am probably missing something here though.Originally posted by PR_Tom
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nate-MM2
I dont mean to sound like a pussy, but why call it "Fuck 2257".
That name is like flipping them off. I wouldnt want to provoke the doj like that.
Can't you come up with a different name.
2257help
2257assist
2257news
whateverComment
-
Someone said there was an exemption added for google I thought.
If I put up a page on my server that iframes some hardcore image hosted on YOUR server, my understanding is that *I* would need the 2257 documentation for that image (and so would you of course).43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.Comment
-
as far as I could tell, there was an exemption adpoted that would cover google cache.Originally posted by GatorBComment
-
Originally posted by GatorB
Uh... we do NOT sell IN the US market.. I dont ship DVDs there... Americans who buy memberships comes to ME.. NOt the other way around..
Comment
-
Full indemnity.Originally posted by clickhappy
The 'fuck2257.com' domain will be a community info-sharing portal.Last edited by Nate-MM2; 05-24-2005, 06:42 AM.Comment
-
§ 75.6 Statement describing location ofOriginally posted by clickhappy
books and records.
(3) A street address at
which the records required by this part
may be made available. The street
address may be an address specified by
the primary producer or, if the
secondary producer satisfies the
requirements of § 75.2(b), the address of
the secondary producer. A post office
box address does not satisfy this
requirement.Comment
Comment